Advertising WRT (with respect to) who buys it?
William
[]
In reference to advertising, Manhattonization, etc, I have always wondered
why there are in womens magazines, 95% pictures of women, and in mans magazines
there are about 50% of either sex? I have read studies that women account for
the most purchases in the US, but it would seem that even if this is so,
somewhere around, say 35% to 50% of the purchases would be for men, and it
seems that there aren't any men modeling. My 'answer' would be that women buy
products according to what they have seen, and men go blindly ahead, ignoring
all that costly advertising, and buy what they like (:->).
Ken Hollis
L S Chabot
Dream on. "men...buy what they like" and "women buy products according to
what they have seen"--in other words, men have the strength of intellect to
make wise decisions and not be fooled by lying advertising, and women don't?
Snicker, snicker.
The reference to a statistic about "most purchases" being made by women has
hidden just what sort of purchases we are referring to--if, for example, food
is included, well, the stereotypical family has the wife shopping for groceries.
So, if we're counting up the number of items, then groceries have lots of little
components. [If we're counting "most purchases" in terms of $$$ or durable
products, then my quibble is meaningless.]
The commonly accepted answer for the preponderance of women models in
advertising is usually phrased "Sex sells". Or in other words: men like to
look at pretty women so it works to put a pretty woman in the ad (look, you
can't say that those bikini-clad women in electronics magazine ads or auto
parts ads are there to attract women--after all, that's not "girl's business),
and women have been brought up to want to be pretty so seeing a pretty woman in
the ad may convince the woman the product will improve her looks (same reason
they put athletic-looking men in men's clothing ads). I don't think this is
reasonable behavior on the part of advertising agencies, but it's one that
seems to be popular.
Now, what category do technically-oriented magazines fall into: men's, women's,
or none-of-above (-: ie, gnurds :-).
It seems to me (actually, it seems pretty easy for me to say, since I'm not)
that if I were a man I'd be pretty insulted by the bikini-clad bait posing
next to a box of bolts. It's like saying: here you animal you--we know we can
fool you into not thinking about the real quality of our product.
On the other hand, a pretty face...a reason I bought my Minolta was that the
buy behind the counter at the photo show had a knock-out smile (-: gee, if I
stand here and talk to him about the camera, maybe he'll smile again :-), much
better than the Pentax guys. Still, the Minolta salesman was *fully* clothed.
The smile wasn't a major or deciding reason, either.
L S Chabot
UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
ARPA: ...chabot%ambe...@decwrl.ARPA
USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA 01752
shadow: [ISSN 0018-9235 v21 #10 p81, bottom vt100, col3, next to next to last]
D.A. Seifert
> by the bikini-clad bait posing next to a box of bolts. It's
> like saying: here you animal you--we know we can
> fool you into not thinking about the real quality of our product.
Well, Lisssssa, you're right, some of us *are* insulted
by these ridiculous ads. These ads are written by and for
the lower IQ types. (there, *that* should get some flames started :-) )
Sometimes these ads are placed in a magazine which doesn't normally
have them, causing a nice uproar. _ B_ i_ c_ y_ c_ l_ i_ n_ g had this happen a few
years ago, with one side claiming that the young lady's outfit
was totally unsuited for cycling, while others defended the
ad, pointing out, for instance, that pedals don't contact the heel
of the foot, thus one could indeed go bike-riding in high heels.
Currently, an ad for wheels in the _ R_ o_ u_ n_ d_ e_ l is threatening to
cause a similar uproar. People are saying "Hey, you make a good
product, don't insult us with these stupid ads."
--
_____ Last one in the system buffer pool
/_____\ is a rotten data block!
/_______\
|___| Snoopy
____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
sonntag
> > by the bikini-clad bait posing next to a box of bolts. It's
> > like saying: here you animal you--we know we can
> > fool you into not thinking about the real quality of our product.
> > L S Chabot
>
> Well, Lisssssa, you're right, some of us *are* insulted
> by these ridiculous ads. These ads are written by and for
> the lower IQ types. (there, *that* should get some flames started :-) )
Well, Snoopy, I'm not insulted, because I know that the ads AREN'T aimed at
me. You must have a very low opinion of yourself.
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxl!mhuxt!js2j
Mark V. Shaney
bikini-clad bait posing next to a statistic about "most purchases"
being made by women has hidden just what sort of purchases we are
equipment. And men are jumping on the part of advertising agencies,
but it's no big deal.
Often when we say "I love you" what we really mean is: "You're pretty
close to the defense of advertising agencies", but it's no big deal.
Though Rosie, Mr. Wiffel and many others have managed to convince us
that they suffer from patriarchy too (though not to project your
"ideals") and then blamed for many of society's ills -- why should
feminism be different? So far, the anonymity has been my only real
problem with the woman feeling neutral about the camera, maybe he'll
smile again :-), much better than the Pentax guys. And I might add:
damn good eatin'! (that was *seriously*, by the bikini-clad bait
posing next to a box of bolts).
Needless to say the woman feeling neutral about the real quality of our
product. On the other hand, a pretty woman in question was a movement
of self-defense (still is unfortunately) where one is fighting for a
nice person, making a good time. If we end up going to bed, okay, but
it's one that seems to me (actually, it seems pretty easy for me to
say, since I'm not) that if I have a very low opinion of yourself.
Just call her up again.
I guess one advantage to starting early was that someone was pregnant.
I called her two days later and she told me the she had a meeting to go
to bed with me? It's been so long since I've had an experience which
has to do this, and she made an appointment for me with her
gynecologist. I found VERY few friends in college had such good
relationships with their mothers.
You are supposed to act according to your ideal, if you'll try to love
each other as we "are", and try not to project your "ideals" and then
blamed for many of society's ills why should they not hate the
oppressor? I can't really sympathise with your amazement at
discovering that many women who were not willing to sacrifice
reputation with possesive neighbors.
Lately I've had sex; I wonder if it will be tonight? I can teleport.
Any volunteers? (I'd love to, but my roommates would kill me - and
then I wouldn't mind meeting others who think that this is reasonable
behavior).
I hope that there are sour apples in every bushel.
_-_-_-_-Mark
L S Chabot
>>> by the bikini-clad bait posing next to a box of bolts. It's
>>> like saying: here you animal you--we know we can
>>> fool you into not thinking about the real quality of our product.
>>> L S Chabot
>>
>> Well, Lisssssa, you're right, some of us *are* insulted
>> by these ridiculous ads. These ads are written by and for
>> the lower IQ types. (there, *that* should get some flames started :-) )
>> Snoopy
>
> Well, Snoopy, I'm not insulted, because I know that the ads AREN'T aimed at
> Jeff Sonntag
Actually, they are aimed at Jeff and Snoopy--the ads are aimed at men. Red-
blooded, Real men with a built in brain-override switch :-) [not at vulcans].
The insult is that these ads are intended to catch your eye if you're male, and
that it's a pretty cheap trick, having nothing to do with the purpose of the
advertised item (admittedly, if the ads were for condoms or vitamin-e (teehee)
then sexy women in the picture might make sense, but in an ad for ICs? yes,
buy from us and sexy, scantily clad women will rush to turn blue in your
computer room).
If Jeff says that the ads aren't aimed at him, then what about me: I'm not
attracted by women in bikinis. Should I be complimented, since I can tell that
this advertiser knows they don't have to attract me with sex since they're
obviously not trying? Should I be insulted, since they're not looking for
women customers? Should I wonder about the advertiser's stereotype of women
reading the magazine in which their ad is placed, since if they want to attract
me with the ad, they must be assuming I *do* like women in bikinis? And what
about the stereotype of men?
My usual assumption is that they're not looking for women customers, or
discriminating customers of any sex, for that matter, and therefore I don't
bother to give them any more consideration.
Owner of smiling cameras,
Steven Maurer
> by the bikini-clad bait posing next to a box of bolts. It's
> like saying: here you animal you--we know we can
> fool you into not thinking about the real quality of our product.
> L S Chabot
More likely, the advertisers just want people to read the
ad, and for this they need something eyecatching. And, of
course, nothing is more eye catching than a nearly nude female
smiling along side the product. Of course the advertisers
don't have to put such women on their covers, but to be effective
they must make sure that a casual reader will not want to skip
the ad.
-- Steve M.
p.s. You too Lisa, are most probably unconsciously attracted to some
ads, which have been targeted towards women. Particularly obnoxious
are the Virginia Slims ads, which (if you look closely) almost always
have some form of genitalia embedded in their ("You've come a long way
baby") pictures.
g...@dmcnh.uucp
Yes, it was me that caused all those ads.
Yes, I'm the one--I'm the guy who buys a particular brand of hardware
on the basis of mass of female breast tissue associated with it.
The way I figure it, if these guys really know how to make good hard-
ware, then they must be raking in the big bucks, right? Well, a good
set of jugs are more expensive per pound than even roast beef, so....
Get the connection? Big tits--good product.
But jeez, I didn't realize everyone was going to get so upset about it.
OK, from now on I'm not going to buy anything according to the model's
looks. From now on, I buy the product with the name that makes me most
horny.
-John Q. Public
Director of Consumer Research
Oh Oh Oh I'm Coming Enterprises, Inc.
97 IQ Way
Anytown, USA
W.ZAKARAS
> It seems to me ... that if I were a man I'd be pretty insulted
> by the bikini-clad bait posing next to a box of bolts. It's
> like saying: here you animal you--we know we can
> fool you into not thinking about the real quality of our product.
> L S Chabot
But if these are the only bolts you can get at that store and don't
want to travel to get others I ask?
WHAT GOOD ARE YOUR NUTS WITHOUT ANY BOLTS ????
Something to think about before you get upset over an advertisement(sp.)
WayneZ...
r...@wu1.uucp
It seems to me (actually, it seems pretty easy for me to say, since
I'm not) that if I were a man I'd be pretty insulted by the
bikini-clad bait posing next to a box of bolts. It's like saying:
here you animal you--we know we can fool you into not thinking about
the real quality of our product.
The picture of the pretty model is not there to get men to stop
thinking about the product. Her picture's there to get a man's
friendly attention.
The first thing *any* advertiser must do is get the prospect to
read the ad. Pictures of pretty models help. Likewise, many
girly calendars are put out by auto-parts and plumbing
manufacturers. It's not that the manufacturers are trying to
fool their customers into not thinking -- rather, they want to
keep their names in the customers' minds and doing little favors
for their customers (like giving them girly calendars) is a nice
way to do that.
The whole business of advertising -- the whole business of selling --
is a matter of convincing a customer that you're his friend. Do that,
and your products will sell themselves. This is why it's so very
important to return telephone calls and to be nice to customers
-- they've got to think of you as friends.
Shouldn't this discussion move to some other newsgroup?
Randolph Fritz
UUCPnet: {ihnp4,decvax}!philabs!wu1!rf
"Love's a kick at the darkness 'till it bleeds daylight."
-- Bruce Cockburn, "Lovers in a Dangerous Time"
Larry Tepper
> Dream on. "men...buy what they like" and "women buy products according to
> what they have seen"--in other words, men have the strength of intellect to
> make wise decisions and not be fooled by lying advertising, and women don't?
> Snicker, snicker.
I agree with this statement, basically. It does remind me of a past
episode from Sally Forth (found on the comic's page of many newspapers).
Sally's daughter says to her: How come when I go shopping with Dad,
we're only gone for 45 minutes, but when you and I go, we're away
for 3 hours?
Sally: That's because your father doesn't go shopping, he goes buying.
I do believe there's a grain of truth there.
--
Don't eat with your hands, use your entrenching tool!
{ihnp4 hao philabs sdcrdcf ucbvax!nbires}!stcvax!lat Larry Tepper
Storage Technology, MD-3T, Louisville, CO 80028 303-673-5435
ken perlow
This discussion of slick advertising and sex differences therein
reminds me of a social psychology experiment performed at Wisconsin
when I was in that department 12 years ago:
The study explored sex differences in perceptions of humor. Both
male and female subjects were, well, subjected to a tape of a
comedian delivering a large number of jokes. Some subjects heard
just the jokes, others heard the jokes with a laugh track. There
were several laugh tracks, with different amounts of laughter for
different jokes, depending which one you got to hear. The
subjects rated the funniness of the jokes (on some scale) as they
heard them.
The upshot of all this was that the female subjects rated jokes
followed by taped laughs much funnier than men did, and in proportion
to the intensity of laughter following a joke. The experimenter
(Dr. Howard Leventhal) made no inferences about the reasons for this
difference, but his results were so statistically significant (F ratios
over 5000 if I remember right) that you could tell something happened
just by looking at the data sheets. In a whole 3 years of graduate
work, that was the *only* social psych. experiment I ever saw that
produced results so obvious that statistical trickery was not necessary.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 05 Nov 84 [15 Brumaire An CXCIII]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7188 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
D.A. Seifert
> followed by taped laughs much funnier than men did, and in proportion
> to the intensity of laughter following a joke.
yes, but which gender was the person telling the jokes, and
was the laugh track mixed, or predominatly one gender?
(no problem, we can poke holes in any experiment ever done)
ken perlow
>> > The upshot of all this was that the female subjects rated jokes
>> > followed by taped laughs much funnier than men did, and in proportion
>> > to the intensity of laughter following a joke.
>> yes, but which gender was the person telling the jokes, and
>> was the laugh track mixed, or predominatly one gender?
>> (no problem, we can poke holes in any experiment ever done)
>> Snoopy
Forgot to mention--tapes had jokes told by both sexes, mixed
male and female laugh track. The design of subject sex X joke-teller
sex X experimenter sex was well-constructed. I'm sure there are
lots of holes to poke, starting with the subject pool of college
sophomores, but really, neither Levanthal nor I was born yesterday.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 06 Nov 84 [16 Brumaire An CXCIII]
Q-Bick
On KCBS (radio, you L.A. egotists!) this morning, they had a live
interview with a guy from a firm that specifically researches the
teen-age market. Merchandisers know the $$ are there, figuring out what
appeals to them is a good investment.
Far and away the #1 influence on what teens will purchase: the NON-
advertisement media. I.e., movies, magazine ARTICLES, television PROGRAMS
- NOT the ads themselves.
The research guy also noted what they found to be the most "fickle"
group of buyers (ready for a surprise?): boys in the 13-15 age group.
Other items that I can remember he said: girls tend to buy more items,
boys tend to buy fewer but more expensive items [probably influenced by
car purchases?]. Overall, though, more of the $$ are spent by (or at
least *for*) the girls.
One question the interviewer asked regarded "missing the fad" - catching
on to a fad a couple of months late. The researcher said the most
obvious of recent times was the "torn-sweatshirt" look - it came and
went in two months, enough time for the merchandisers to begin
producing, but not long enough to really establish a market.
The generation gap is getting more noticeable - the survey used for the
research asked teen-agers about such people as Joni Mitchell. Only 4% of
the girls said they liked Joni; 68% didn't know who she was!
[I doesn't make 'em up, I just reports 'em]
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab
You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.